Natural, mysterious, safe

It’s well known that we feel better in green areas than in a highly urbanised space devoid of vegetation. This is our subjective feeling supported by scientific theories for several decades. – At this stage of scientific development, we no longer ask ourselves whether areas with greenery have a more beneficial effect on us. Now we wonder what features of them work in what way, what feelings and reactions they evoke. In the research I direct, I am most interested not in simple relationships, but in complex relationships that show cause-and-effect systems – explains Prof. Aleksandra Lis. – We are not looking for perfect solutions, because there are none. We are looking to understand the complex web of human feelings in order to make the right decisions in a given unique situation – adds the architect. 

 Together with Dr. Łukasz Pardela, a team of scientists and students from the Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences (Karolina Zalewska, Ewa Adamczak, Alicja Cenarska, Klaudia Bławicka, Barbara Brzegowa, Anastasiia Matiiuk) and Paweł Iwankowski, a psychologist from Gdańsk and a specialist in statistical analysis, she published the results of two studies in the journal Landscape and Urban Planning: "How the amount of greenery in urban parks influences visitor preference in terms of naturalness, visibility and perceived danger" and "How vegetation influences preference, mystery and danger in fortifications and parks in urban areas". 

Closer look at parks

 These works attempt to answer the question of what factors and how dense greenery influences our perception, in parks and fortification areas. They use the Kaplan matrix, which is one theory that explains these preferences. It assumes that whether we like landscapes, and to what extent, depends on four factors: coherence and complexity, and mystery and legibility. In her research, Prof. Lis mostly uses a research method in which landscapes are analysed.

 – This is a rather unusual approach to survey research, because usually people are compared. If, for example, we asked respondents whether they liked densely overgrown parks, we could compare the answers: so many like them, dislike them, and have no opinion. Such a group can also be analysed sociodemographically, comparing responses in people of different ages and genders. The method I have most often used in recent years is quite different. The research group is made up of landscapes represented by photographs, rated by expert judges – people who give them a rating on a specific capacity.

 The average rating is the value that a photo has. We can compare this to the ratings given to figure skaters, where the pair's rating is the average of the judges' ratings. Once we have the ratings of all the photos, we can compare them with each other, statistically checking how the ratings are related to each other. For example, we test whether our sense of threat grows as the density of the vegetation increases. 

 In the first study, the hypotheses were that naturalness decreases visibility, making parks appear less safe, and that the amount of greenery affects perceived safety because it decreases visibility.

 127 participants evaluated 120 photographs of park landscapes, selected from a set of 1,000 photographs taken in the parks of Wrocław. The photographs were taken in late spring or summer, in full vegetation, on sunny days, between 10am and 3pm, with no scenes of particularly attractive elements (e.g. ponds) and no scenes depicting neglect. All these criteria were intended to minimise the influence of other factors. In a questionnaire, participants of different ages and genders answered questions about feelings of safety, visibility, naturalness and preference.

 It turned out that wild-looking parks, full of dense natural greenery, are perceived as less safe than parks with visible human intervention, because they are less visible. If, on the other hand, these 'wild' parks were shaped to be visible, with safety in mind, then they would elicit positive visitor perceptions.

On the trail of a mystery

Urban parks play an important role in the quality of day-to-day life of city dwellers, allowing for rest, regeneration, quick, cheap and easy contact with nature. In another study, the cultural aspect was additionally important: fortifications are not only a sort of park, they are above all monuments of significant historical value, part of Europe's military heritage. Dr. Łukasz Pardela, co-author of the study, has previously researched fortifications from a historical and conservation perspective. – In our current project, we have combined our areas of interest – say the authors. 

According to 1997 data, we have about 4817 forts in Poland, of various sizes, types and origins. The authors admit that there is not much research on preferences towards historical sites, and little is known about the preferences of those who visit fortifications. Usually, their significance has been considered from a cultural point of view, with the surrounding greenery treated as a destroyer that damages historic structures. 

– However, when we treat them like parks, as places of recreation, then a new area for research opens up. The conservationist schools of preservation assumed that such sites should be exposed as best as possible to show the former structures. The greenery that appears on them over time should be removed so that it does not obliterate these structures and dislodge the walls. Meanwhile, our research shows that people like the greenery on the fortifications because it makes them seem more mysterious. They don't show all the elements, they leave room for imagination, for exploration. This prompts us to revise our old views and consider directions for revaluation in which the forts are not so much a dead historical monument as an attractive place for exploration and recreation. Instead of emphasising the conflict of interests, it is better to look for compromises: to respect both the arguments of conservationists and nature; architecture and greenery can coexist – believes the professor.

In a study to show the relationship between secrecy, threat and preference, 83 participants (61 women and 22 men) viewed photographs selected at random from a larger pool: 60 photographs of fortified landscapes from the 19th and 20th centuries from Chełmno, Grudziądz, Nysa, Poznań, Toruń and Wrocław, and 60 photographs of Wrocław’s parks. As in the previous study, they were taken in spring or summer, on sunny days, avoiding any traces of degradation, anti-social behaviour or extremely decorative elements.

The results showed that in the parks the sense of danger had a greater impact on our feelings – we prefer visibility. The opposite is true for forts, where mystery won – we like the dense greenery around forts because it adds to the mysteriousness of these objects, even though it makes them seem dangerous. 

– Mystery is a very important element in the attractiveness of a landscape. Mysterious landscapes prompt us to go further, to satisfy our natural curiosity, to pursue new information, and this is, after all, what tourism is all about. But mystery also has a downside: it is associated with a reduced sense of security – when we don't know what's around the bend, on the one hand we are curious, which prompts us to explore – but on the other hand we may be afraid of potential danger, which keeps us from that exploration. Our research has shown that mysterious landscapes are often less visible, so seem less safe. Therefore, mysteriousness is desirable for tourism, but only where a sense of danger is not present – say the authors.

They admit that the results of both studies were not surprising. The research hypotheses posed at the beginning were confirmed: parks with natural vegetation are unpopular when they are not very transparent and seem unsafe. However, the naturalness of a park is not a source of anxiety if it has a clear layout.

No simple recipe

The results can be used to plan sustainable urban green spaces. They provide guidance for landscape designers; they indicate how the physical characteristics of urban parks affect the visitors' perceptions of them. Prof. Aleksandra Lis cautions, however, that there is no simple 'recipe' for parks and that a distinction must be made between what is the goal for science and what is the goal for the designers. 

– Science should in no way judge reality or answer questions about what we should do. The purpose of science is to understand and predict. Our answers can only help those responsible for shaping spaces – she says.  

– Studies on feelings of safety in parks overwhelmingly show that dense greenery reduces feelings of safety. The conclusion often drawn from these studies is that parks should be shaped as open spaces, using trees, preferably with a high-set canopy, and without mid-growth vegetation, i.e. shrubs that create view obscurations. However, while such spaces are undoubtedly safer, it does not necessarily mean that they are better. People are looking for different values in parks, not just safety. Such values include, for example, the mysteriousness and naturalness explored by us in both articles, giving a sense of fuller contact with nature. Although both of these factors, naturalness and mysteriousness, are present in usually less safe places, they should not be overlooked. For they can influence our tastes and consequently our choices regarding the use of given places and even the entire park for recreational purposes. Design is the art of thinking simultaneously about the many aspects that arise from varying circumstances. I would not recommend wild parks in crime-ridden areas. But in safe places, those used by many people, or fenced off, monitored places – by all means. Can you imagine our Botanic Garden shaped according to the principles of a safe space, without dense vegetation, charming, romantic corners? – adds Professor Aleksandra Lis.

She emphasises that there are no clear answers to many questions. Also whether we appreciate the biodiversity of landscapes or confuse it with neglect. The density of vegetation is sometimes evaluated positively precisely when it is associated with biodiversity. 

– It has been shown that such an opinion is more common among people with a higher environmental awareness. However, more studies show a negative effect of such greenery on preferences. This is partly related to a reduced sense of security, and partly just to the impression of chaos and neglect, which are linked. The broken glass theory speaks to this: traces of destruction, devastation are a signal of a lack of supervision of the area, and this increases the sense of danger and the level of crime. People with a high environmental awareness will see the reduction of human interference and the building of biodiversity as a deliberate, conscious and pro-ecological endeavour. Those with low awareness may perceive such landscapes as neglected, forgotten wastelands that attract dangerous people and inappropriate behaviour – explains the professor.  

Her articles, published in Landscape and Urban Planning, are part of a large body of research on landscape preferences, which has looked at how certain features of parks affect people's preferences. 

Most of the studies show that dense vegetation adversely affects our assessment of a particular park site. However, there are also studies that show the opposite. 

– This is not surprising, because the features of reality that act on us form complex systems. Determining whether, in a certain situation, dense vegetation influenced our perception positively or negatively allows us to understand and predict people's feelings to a limited extent. We can understand and predict these feelings much better when we learn, even if only residually, about such a system – says the architect. 

Other studies she has led have examined, among other things, the sense of being watched and heard (i.e. being in control), the effect of the presence of people, their number and the distance they are at on privacy, sense of threat and preference, and the effect of terrain on privacy and sense of threat. 

In her latest project, she will investigate the impact of park lighting on the sense of danger, mystery and visibility of spaces. She will conduct part of the experiment in the Botanical Garden in Wrocław.

– Unfortunately, park lighting is designed according to street standards. This direct translation is bad; park paths are flooded with too much light. This harms animals and plants by disrupting their diurnal cycle, does not add to the beauty of the park and does not provide a sense of security for people, because apart from the paths the rest is drowned in darkness. It is necessary to reduce the intensity of the light and take it outside the paths as well, for example by spotlighting selected trees – advises Prof. Aleksandra Lis. 

Aneta Augustyn

• 

  Scientists unite to promote biodiversity

  Rectors of European life science universities affiliated with the ICA (Association for European Life Science Universities) have this year adopted a stance on promoting the importance of biodiversity, with the Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences is among the signatories. The European Union already adopted a strategy for action in this field two years ago.

• 

  UPWr scientists in the GENESIS mission team

  The European Space Agency is to allocate EUR 80 million to the GENESIS mission, which goal is to do something that has never been achieved before in satellite and space exploration. The new satellite will help improve the accuracy of geodetic measurements on the Earth's surface. The team preparing the mission concept included four scientists from the Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformatics.